A tall order: Republican plan to balance budget in 10 years

Comments (6)
mutt3003 wrote:

Reuters your obama is showing……….

Jan 23, 2013 9:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SDaignault wrote:

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry after reading this. How ludicrous is the idea that a 10 year plan to balance the budget can’t be taken seriously … because it isn’t possible. We are only at the very beginning of the baby boomers retiring. The baby boom years are considered 1946 – 1964. In 2023, we’ll be just past the mid-point of the baby boomers retiring. People born in 1955 will be turning 68 in 2023. It is utter delusion to even think that entitlement reform is an option. Not only is entitlement reform not an option, but the radical measures that will be required to have a prayer at solvency needed to be put into place long before today.

Jan 23, 2013 10:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Mott wrote:

So, you want to think in 10 year term.. how about $5T in interest payments alone (over 10 years) on the debt while the team cannot survive without increasing the debt limit.

Jan 23, 2013 11:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Realist99 wrote:

The author says “the federal budget was last balanced in 2001, thanks in part to a tax increase, low unemployment and a booming economy.” He leaves out the fact that those projected surpluses were also the result of substantial spending cuts (like welfare reform) that the Gingrich-led Congress forced on President Clinton. He also leaves out that the “booming economy” at the end of the 1990s was a bubble–the internet bubble. Capital gains on all those internet stock trades were filling the Treasurs coffers until the NASDAQ collapsed from its peak of over 4,000 in Dec 1999, falling by almost half by the time President Bush took office in Jan 2001. The author’s omissions are no error I’m sure–just more evidence of Reuter’s pervasive left tilt.

Jan 23, 2013 11:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
fromthecenter wrote:

Does that include the cost of the war with iran and/or north korea? Or will they do that outside the budget again so it dont count.

Jan 24, 2013 3:42am EST  --  Report as abuse
morbas wrote:

Balance the budget immediately, this year.
Poverty/subsistence margin flat rate of taxation is fairness. The upper quintile views fair as the more you make the more you take home. This meets both criteria. The Washington bureaucrats missed a big opportunity to propose a margin flat rate tax that balances the budget. Rates $0-20K 0%, money above $20K 35%; couples freely share; all income bundled and taxed in summation form, no exemptions. And provide business relief with no business taxation with provisions on ‘partnership and disregarded’ businesses to transfer funds into personal accounts as the taxable income. Ends family business inheritance taxation, except when sold for personal profit (always taxable). The fiscal cliff resolution applies a higher 39.6% rate accommodating a 20% capital gains rate, and does not balance the budget. This poverty/subsistence margin flat tax balances the budget eliminating all other taxes (payroll, gasoline…) with a lower 35% flat tax rate. It is net income progressive at a lower rate than the federal income single standard deduction form.

Jan 25, 2013 10:52am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.